Appeal No. 2006-0609
Application No. 10/036,862
on this record, we are not persuaded that the appellants have
demonstrated that the claimed subject matter as a whole imparts
unexpected results.
First, it is not enough for the appellants to show that the
wet/dry wiping recited in claims 2 through 4 imparts an
improvement in the bead (soil) removal relative to a single
wiping or dry wiping. The appellants must demonstrate that this
improvement is unexpected. In re Freeman, 474 F.2d 1318, 1324,
177 USPQ 139, 143 (CCPA 1973); Klosak, 455 F.2d at 1080, 173 USPQ
at 16. Nevertheless, the appellants have not explained why one
of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably expect to
increase the removal of soil or body waste on a body surface by
increasing the number of wipings. Additionally, the reason why
people wipe as many times as necessary is because it is common
knowledge that additional wipes can remove more soil or body
waste that are remaining on the body surface after the first
wipe. See In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549
(CCPA 1969)(The conclusion of obviousness may be made from
“common knowledge and common sense” of the person of ordinary
skill in the art); In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 743, 226 USPQ 771,
774 (Fed. Cir. 1985)(Skill is presumed on the part of those
practicing in the art). Moreover, the appellants have not
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007